On the one hand, I would love opera to be popular. Well, popular enough for someone to say “You know, La Boheme is on TV so I’ll just tape the footy and watch it later.”
But it will always be niche. And a recent article by Jennifer Rivera in the Huffington Post prompted me to say on Facebook that instead of moaning about the fact that the rest of the world doesn’t get what we do (or thinks Kathryn Jenkins is an excellent example of it) let’s stop waiting for the opera houses and record labels of the world to give us permission, and just get off our arses and sing.
Why don’t we get up and record our own recitals? Stage our own operas? Create our own compositions? Perform on Ustream to the dinner tables of the world? This is the future of opera. Crowdsourced. Collaborative. Personalised to our audience. Because ultimately if we are gifted with the talent to sing, it is our responsibility to be imaginative and entrepreneurial and get our voices heard outside the opera house.
My friend Imogen Roose – herself an excellent singer – raised a vital point in response to my call to arms:
“For some of us this “outside the opera house” is the vast majority of the work we do, and I have to say that quite a few (ex)colleagues seem to think we’re no longer “opera singers”. An attitude that is a great pity, I think.”
As an opera singer who stood back from international level singing to raise my children, I’ve experienced the same thing. And it is precisely this attitude that is killing opera, slowly from the inside. Aside from suffocating any kind of innovation and entrepreneurial spark, it demeans and devalues our art, our talent, our contributions and our identity. But why do we allow it to flourish? But where does this attitude come from anyway?
I think it’s based on 4 major beliefs we have about the business (I’m sure there are more but hey, it’s early here and I probably need more coffee) :
1. We associate true opera singing with a specific set of skills that can only be measured fully in an “opera house”.
Singing Carmen in an A house demands more vocal athleticism, projection and stamina from a singer technically than singing Carmen in a small hall with a piano or warbling mock-Rossini in a studio to a backing track. So a singer must prove themselves worthy of the name opera singer by actually singing on stage in an opera house.
2. We associate the opera house with a ‘success tag’ – where you sing is a definition of how successful you are.
This is where it’s not just the architecture that defines your success but the opera house’s address. The Metropolitan Opera, New York and Bayerische Staatsoper, Munich will always carry more weight than the New Theatre, Cardiff. (And I think this also goes for record labels – which label has more cachet, DG or Naxos?)
3. We believe that if a singer is not singing in opera houses anymore that this is because they are now no longer good enough to be hired.
We value talent so highly that it’s inconceivable that a great singer may not want to be on the opera circuit anymore. How can you waste such god-given talent, those years of study and application? If a singer is no longer singing in a house, it must be because they are not good enough, or their voice is knackered, their technique faulty, or some such flaw.
4. We associate being an opera singer as more than just a profession but as a declaration of everything we are.
Opera singer as artist, glamorous, diva, prima donna, expansive, artistic, unusual, unique, esteemed, revered, dedicated, self-sacrificial, obsessed… we are peacocks, admired yet enigmatic. No one really knows what we do unless you do it, too. Secret. Undercover. And this is highly alluring and difficult to let go of, especially in exchange for the perceived drudgery of “normal” paid work or the plain domesticity of motherhood.
Again, this small list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it definitive. But I do feel very strongly that they shape and influence everything from a singer’s career choices to their overall feeling of personal success and failure.
And it’s important to note that a belief is simply a thought we have chosen to think over and over again until we believe it is true. So many singers would look at the above and declare all of them to be true statements of fact. And in part I agree. But seriously – architecture, postcode, status and scarcity as the true defining elements of a successful career?
I readily would acknowledge – indeed celebrate – the fact that there are plenty of happy and successful singers traipsing the boards of opera houses all over the world. They are happy within the conventions and boundaries of what currently exists, they have balanced their lives accordingly and whether it is conscious or not, the terms for success they have defined for themselves are being fulfilled. And right now, they are the lucky ones because they fit the paradigm that is already in place.
But we must acknowledge for every singer who fits into the system, there are those who are stifled by it. Who are teeming with frustration because the love they have for their profession is seemingly at odds with the rest of their commitments - to their partners, to their children, to other passions, to their intellect, to their desire to abandon the physical introspection and neurosis that is the hallmark of the jobbing singer.
The singers who will be left with no choice but to exchange the glitz of the big houses for the frenzied over-populated ponds of small, regional houses so they can sleep in their own beds at the end of the night. The ones who crave a five day week so they can fly home to see their children for a night or two.
And what about the ones who actually jumped ship and who are now silent?
Thousands of excellently trained singers are out there waiting, aching to define success on their terms and not by the narrow confines of the opera world. They sense instinctively the possibilities of owning their lives more, the power of owning the assets their voices might create, and the creative freedom that the new digital distribution allows them.
These singers still have a voice. These singers still deserve to feel successful outside the conventional paradigm. And they believe, passionately, that opera is not dying for want of an audience. But that it is being killed slowly from the inside by destructive, unimaginative and restrictive beliefs about what the business is. It’s time for a vision not for what opera singing is but for what it could become.
We are desperately looking for role models, leaders, trailblazers… will you be one of them?
28 Comments
I plan on being one of those trailblazers.
I write librettos – not the stilted poetry of yesteryear, not the lyric formality of a century ago – rather, language that speaks to how we communicate now. Short, sharp bursts of language, overlapping conversational gambits, filled with meta and meme and self-referential snark.
I am currently working with composer Chip Michael and we create pieces that are a challenge to sing, and a bitch to rehearse, until the pieces fall in place and the rhythm of ‘now’ comes through.
No ‘big’ house has been willing to look at what we do, because it is too different, too un-quantifiable.
Instead, we are taking an alternate path and hoping to bring many fine singers who are ready for this along with us.
Yes! And better yet, you have the means now to build your own platform, with an audience that your work speaks to directly…
Have seen and heared Imgen and Jack in Covent garden. How can they say they are no longer operasingers. They really are.
But I am glad they were in Govent garden, so I could haer them. They are extraordinary good!
They can touch one deep inside the heart.
They are good operasingers!
Operasingers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your voices….
The truth is that the system (which in the English-speaking world simply does not provide real paid work to enough operasingers in enough locations for large enough collections of audiences in small enough theatres) does not work as it needs to. That’s because opera is the most complicated and labour-intensive of the live performing arts – and an overly commercial approach not supported by local town and region governments just cannot create and sustain the kind of environment that opera needs. It’s not rocket science.
Go to Germany, Austria and Switzerland where the competition for work in the getting-on for 100 opera companies with contracted, decently paid singers maintaining the kinds of repertoire that bring in audiences is fierce – and the companies have lots of singers from Korea, Japan, and China, as well as from the Ukraine and Poland and Lithuania and Brazil and even the USA, and ticket prices can usually be afforded by ordinary blue-collar human beings. That is the world of opera. In the English-speaking world people who want to go to opera or work in opera have to fend as best they can. And it is a disaster. But thank God for whatever forms of life survive.
Hey, I just heard the Met is having trouble selling its seats for The Ring. Sorry about that. It seems people who have got used to enjoying it as a thing on the screen in their local moviehouse no longer feel so drawn to get their Wagner charge through an expensive trip to New York. Perhaps the exploitation the Met has managed with its screenings around the world has not been such a great idea after all. Live opera with lots of different singers at different levels of accomplishment is what it needs to be all about.
But how do you build a tradition that depends on people liking to put in the work that opera audiences need to do – that depends on local government just like libraries and schools and hospitals? The tea party USA is not heading in that direction. But it is the only way. Opera has to win its mass audience and its proper funding, and to do that it has to be felt as necessary out their in the population – because it’s beautiful and transforming and provoking and painfully truthful. If the German-speaking world can know that it is needed, so can everybody else. It is ensemble opera, that makes sense and does not depend on stars and does not make agents a fortune or make rich people feel grand because they are getting so-called “worldclass” quality in what they enjoy. And it keeps looking again at the great masterpieces of 400 years of genius.
And singers who work in companies and are properly rewarded can have good lives and be part of local communities, just like decent rep actors can. It’s all possible. But it has to be funded locally – not from federal programme – and valued locally. That is the only way. The other approach, smallscale and underpaid or unpaid, re-inventing the wheel and constantly compromised,will never be able to create the scale of audience involvement that’s needed. And opera that can persuade and convert new audiences has to be opera that they can enjoy as a reasonably close-up experience, in theatres that are not too large where they can see the performers’ faces from the back of the house.
Thanks for your comments Tom – I think you’re right in saying that local communities who support local opera are the lifeblood of the business in Europe. But I fear we’re really too late to even consider local opera in a traditional sense ever gaining a foothold… In the same way that I would suggest anyone considering opening a retail brick-and-mortar shop get their head examined, who in their right mind would willingly enter into the world of opening a new theatre specifically for opera? (Unless one had deep pockets and a singing wife.) Libraries are not long for this world once books all go digital, just like traditional publishing has been through the fire and continues to strive for a new model for itself.
Additionally, opera is not part of the modern fabric of English-speaking culture. My husband’s Italian relatives break into song at the earliest opportunity. His Zia Anna carries castanets in her handbag just in case the mood strikes for a bit of living room sing-and-dance (and it always does). Singing is a perfectly acceptable expression of heightened emotion and admired as such. The only time singing lustily in public is celebrated in the UK is in a pub or a football pitch (and how ironic that so many football chants are sung to operatic melodies, right?)
While live opera is such an important and valuable experience, I fell in love with opera without ever having been in an opera house. I first saw Zefferelli’s film of La Traviata when I was 15 and wept for almost an hour when it ended. So I am a biased but fervent believer that opera will touch those who are ready to be touched by it, if only they could hear or see it.
The discussion will certainly continue and there is no easy solution – but I would like to see opera singers take some inspiration from the new wave of authors who are building their communities online. They certainly have nothing to lose, as you say.
Tom, I really miss reading your articles and critique! I remember sitting next to you on a flight from Glasgow to London, and you gently castigated me and said “Barry, you have a duty to do at least one contract a year in London!” The truth is and was that I would have JUMPED at the chance to do that as a norm but….. As I don’t fit into that operatic ‘norm’ then that wasn’t afforded me, I just wasn’t offered regular contracts! I had to ply my wares abroad, and the more I did that, the more I became primarily a ‘foreign’ singer. So much so that on one occasion whilst at an after show party at one of our very fine regional opera companies, having watched the performance, 3 of the chorus came up to me and said “Hi Barry, lovely to see you. Do you still sing?’ I just replied that I did. We tend to live in our own worlds and they become a microcosm of the world. Now I am not complaining as I have had and am having a good career, but, it is difficult to quantify what is either the born, or what the public want.
I admit to being rather old fashioned in my theatre wishes, and LOVE the old elegant artistry and traditional productions (whatever that means!) and wonder how we can keep those types of values going with all these amazing technological advances. Does taking opera and singing out through the various media avenues mean that we go away from those styles completely? Natalie…. are you saying that we need to totally repackage? It seems to me that the sheer artistry of what we do lends itself to a gentler form rather than what has become ‘street.’ A couple of years ago I went to see Lear at Denver Rep Theater. The Lear was an old pro who had been with the company for 30 years and was magnificent. His colleagues were mainly younger and lacking his classical training. They were, to quote Billy Connolly ‘Hip, fab, trendy, groovy, windswept and interesting’! and also intensely annoying, as they had no clue as to how to hold themselves on stage. I mention this because we have to be careful of what we wish for. If we want to take it away from the norm or, as some would say, snobby and aloof way of performing, then we will soon lose the ability to be able to walk on stage in period costume. Now, some people may like that idea and say that opera needs it to survive. But what then of the great works of the last 400 years? Will we be forever fed a diet of modern opera? Is there any financial way of us performing in smaller venues with this in mind and still attract the public?
I don’t know, but whatever way we go we shouldn’t lose that wonderful artistry.
Our business has become an industry of self promotion….. recording one’s own albums, distributing them, Youtube, etc. Indeed, filling this reply form asked for my website……. I don’t have one! I am just not comfortable self promoting and wouldn’t probably have a career if it were down to that… I just get too embarrassed at the whole process. I keep getting bugged by people to start my own web page, but then it needs upkeep to keep it looking professional and I’m not that beast! Maybe singers now are happier doing that because they have grown up in that web based media spotlight. It amazes me that singer can do that nowadays. I see how hard they work at self promotion. It is absolutely true that pure talent does NOT rise to the top without help and a healthy dose of luck, but as to how our art form can survive in a pure form (and, as has been intimated, NOT the Kathleen Jenkins and Russell Watson type) I am at a loss.
My other BIG bugbear i the business is this one of ensemble. I am HORRIFIED at the lack of it. I grew up as a trumpet and cornet player and ensemble was everything. It SHOULD be in opera, but everyone seems to be looking out for themselves and not the genius of the Mozart ensemble or indeed ANY great ensemble. We don’t listen any more!
Why also do people think we will work for free. I was contacted by an namedorchestra here in New York yesterday to ask if I will stand by for a fundraiser on Monday evening. I have never been employed by this outfit so why on earth do they think I would just give them a free evening?
Hi Barry! I have always admired your singing and our performances together at ENO were a highlight for me.
I loved your comments – firstly I also feel very strongly about preserving the excellence of ‘traditional’ operatic artistry in the face of technology. There is nothing like watching an old pro at work on stage. But for me this isn’t a question of distribution but of training and talent. A theatrical veteran with 30 years of rep solidity and support – how enviable this is. And the opera system used to be so similar – I suppose Germany is the closest thing to it now. But a great artist is a great artist, and I would argue that the actor playing Lear would have been mesmerising had he been performing in a park, a theatre, a pub or on the street. How we get to see him is distribution – and there are more avenues available for other artists than there are for opera singers. This needs to change, I believe.
Self-promotion – in this day and age it is essential but it must be strategic. This is so important. There is no point forking out hundreds of pounds to keep a website updated (which is nonsensical really as it can be done for very little nowadays) if all one is doing is setting up a ‘shop front’ and waiting for people to come in. I can hear the digital tumbleweeds rolling by…
We as singers have a product that a tiny sliver of the world wants to buy – but our voices, our stage craft, our interpretations are only part of it. But because we are always asking permission to perform with every audition we do, we forget that our market is not the audition panel but the audience! Management companies and opera houses are gatekeepers to the world of live, staged opera. But they are not our real market.
We sing for opera lovers. Lovers of singing. And opera lovers are not necessarily opera goers. So why restrict ourselves to the opera house?
We must use self-promotion to reach out to those who love what we do – and more importantly those who love WHY we do it, because people buy into philosophies more than products – so they can feel part of something bigger and more meaningful.
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment, Barry. I hope this discussion expands into constructive action.
Here at Co-Opera Co. this is just what we are aiming for- we see hundreds of singers each year desperate to show their wares but still blinkered into believing the only shop window is the Opera House or concert platfrom. The sooner singers start to see themselves as businesss people with a product to sell the better. And there is absolutley no point in having a wonderful product in your “shop” if you can’t get customers through the door – sorry about the extended metaphor but … as with all businesses in eh 21st century we need to expand our remit – tailor the product to the customer – take the product into their home and place of work – physically and via the net.
I also believe we need to be rather more collaborative both as artists and as companies – Singers helping Singers is the Co-Opera Co. ethos and little by little we believe we are helping to make a difference.
Kate
I fully agree Kate and I would love to know more about Co-Opera’s mission – for too long opera singers have been treated as cannon fodder and cheap labour. I know this will raise a few eyebrows but it’s time someone said it – instead of being grateful for employment, I would desperately love to see a new generation of singers who consider themselves asset-creators and business builders. How many times have I performed on stage and yet have no assets of my own from these performances that I can continue to monetise? At least an author only has to write the book once – we have to do it over and over again.
Opera houses are gatekeepers and they are much harder to bypass than publishing houses are for writers because of the collaborative nature of the beast. But you’re right – we must be more collaborative outside the usual spaces, much more enterprising and imaginative… the challenge is changing the mindset of the singers themselves…
Excellent article Natalie.
Some things to consider though.
Much of the way things have become is as a result of the society’s shifting value sets. Where, once upon a time, Opera was reasonably mainstream, it is now promoted (?) to the heady ranks of ‘high-culture’. It has been hijacked by aficionados in tiaras and tails in the minds of the vast majority of average people and performers in the Grand Opera Houses are only too happy to perpetuate this situation.
You’re right to point out that we need to bring this form of entertainment to the masses but many of the preconceived stereotypes that have arisen over the last century or so will be extremely difficult to make disappear not to mention the lack of support of REAL music in much of the English speaking education curriculum will ensure that it is doubly difficult to achieve. Using new technologies needs to be the way forward as you point out.
From an alternate angle, I don’t believe that you can segregate ‘opera’ from other classical musical forms when you address the general population. I never have and I think it’s counter-productive to do so. We are all SINGERS first and foremost and we may or may nor specialise in the operatic form. Just as an orchestral player doesn’t say he’s a ‘Symphonist’ we shouldn’t segment the operatic art either. Saying that you are an “Opera Singer” smacks of elitism to the average punter and you won’t overcome the instant dismissiveness unless you step back.
Primarily, you are a MUSICIAN first and foremost and that’s what I would say to anyone who asked my employment. This term is understood and is easily assimilated by an outsider. Follow up may indeed reveal that one sings and that one further specialises in opera.
This may seem to be petty semantics to many but, in the eyes of the public, the process remains as I’ve outlined. As you point out, the self-aggrandising and segmenting of our role and status is counter-productive to the future of the ‘business’.
BY all means, make opera more accessible but do not close the door TO that access by an ill-considered use of terminology.
Thanks Mitch – great points… I totally agree that we are singers first and foremost, and that opera is repertoire, not necessarily a status or badge of achievement in and of itself. And I’ll respond more on elitism here on the blog as it’s too big for here.
But on making opera accessible – it would help if it was incorporated more into other media as normal and acceptable, even sexy. Only last night my husband and I watched a 60s Italian movie with my husband called “Signori e Signore” directed by Pietro Germa. In one of the opening scenes, a doctor is getting ready for a night out, all the while singing lines from the aria “E lucevan le stelle” from Tosca. Together we imagined how many people watching that film at the time knew what he was singing? Many, we wagered. But a modern audience? Worse still, how many would even care?
What an inspiring, challenging, uplifting and ultimately encouraging article! Even when you say “I am a singer” you are asked “So where/when/what do you sing?”…um, well, nowhere, never and nothing at the moment…” You’ve brought some thoughtful joy to this “opera singer” who is also a stay-at-home mum – I feel stupid saying that I am both, but I feel freer now to resist other people’s definitions of me
Thank you so much, Gilly!
Great article. I think there are people trying to do just that, and we as singers and art-lovers should support those efforts wherever we find them. For example, in Philadelphia, the Opera Company of Philadelphia live-streamed their opening night of Carmen this season to a gigantic screen at Independence Hall to an audience of picnickers. The viewing was completely free, and everyone I saw there had a great time.
OCP also brings opera to the masses on a semi-regular basis with their “Random Acts of Culture” pop-up opera performances. The last one was a performance of the Anvil Chorus at Gino’s Steaks, a Philly icon.
And then there are smaller companies like Poor Richard’s Opera, which is mounting a production of Falstaff for the Philadelphia Fringe Festival this September. It’s a low-budget affair, with a minimal orchestra and costumes, performed at a church, but the local singers are excited about auditions, and I have a feeling the quality of the product will be extremely high.
THIS is the future of opera. True passion for the art combined with an entrepreneurial spirit and flexibility to find audiences in unexpected places is what is going to help us all thrive.
Thanks Maren, these are great examples. I’m a huge fan of opera on film especially, as seeing Zeffirelli’s “La Traviata” was one of the major inspirations for me to want to become a singer myself. Anything an opera company can do to have themselves seen or heard (or orchestra for that matter, like what the Berlin Phil are doing by making their catalog available online) is a chance to capture a brand new person’s imagination.
There’s of course no harm at guessing what the future of opera might be. Opera has had its ups and downs in the past, though the current down is going on rather a long time. The line of heredity in opera is not that obvious. Did Handel pass the baton to Gluck? Not really. And though Gluck did influence Mozart, who never heard (or even read the score) of any Handel opera, you could argue that Handel, because of The Messiah mainly and other non-theatrical music, was a more important ancestor of Mozart’s operas than Gluck – not least because Handel as a melodious dramatist knew what to do with a chorus that was interesting and popular. But don’t think that the US cannot learn from Germany in opera as it has in so much else (and, incidentally, don’t write off the book and libraries, as books will happily coexist with the kindle and i-pad and libraries will simply have the benefit of being electronic and international and easily accessed as well). The reason the German-speaking world has so many operatic ensembles is not just a foolish way to spend public money as most Americans are inclined to think. After all, the USA does in fact subsidise opera and theatre and the arts generally rather generously, because the apparent generosity of the rich givers to all these things depends heavily on tax kickbacks and deals allowed by the Revenue. But anyway the German-speaking world has found that ensembles playing in reasonable-scale theatres for towns as small as 70,000 and mostly 150,000 up populations make financial sense because of their productivity and their flexibility – the local population identifies with the work done by “its” local company which it can get to see easily and cheaply, making many visits to the opera-house in the course of a year (seeing perhaps 10 to 15 performances). But also word-of-mouth has the time to work because of the repertory system. Many of the audience will purchase one kind of subscription or another. The joy of the system is that it enables people who don’t know about opera to catch up with good work that they hear about casually much later than its first appearance. So it’s possible to revive productions in the following season that have been surprisingly popular. Even in Magdeburg (population 226,800) – where Karen Stone has a tough time filling her beautiful new opera house built after the re-union of Germany using EU taxpayers’ money because the local population happily fill up the spoken theatre with its company of 22 actors and guests but are much stickier about coming to her opera with its 18 singers and guests and chorus of 34 and orchestra of 82 – my son’s Werther production gained enough of an audience over its run last season to be brought back for three performances around now. Shows catch on because they have enough time. It makes economic sense to have an ensemble and workshops and the whole structure of what’s called a Stadttheater (town-theatre company) with dance as well as spoken theatre and opera, because that kind of social and economic stability makes for a lot of productivity – with the possibility of maximising the number of performances while paying the performers and everybody else comparatively moderate but livable fees/salaries – and even on top of that pension contributions. And you do not have to lie to the public promoting it all as “worldclass” or “international” – though the singers from all over the world are in fact truly international, which is why German opera no longer does it much in translation (Offenbach and Cole Porter and Sondheim being exceptions). The model works. But it requires commitment and financial bravery and a far-sighted local government to get it up and running.
What do you think a local government would need to provide in order for this model to take root and flourish, Tom? And doesn’t the cultural predisposition and general demographic heavily influence the success of these Stadttheaters? Do they succeed because the population have generations of patronising this kind of culture under their belt, or are the local governments encouraging their patronage through specific initiatives?
I ask these questions because I love the concept so much, but I despair of it flourishing in places where a love for this kind of theatre/opera already exists. Can it be done?
As you know I’ve commented on your article on facebook. I agree with Tom and Barry in that they both seem to want to keep the integrity of the art form of opera in it’s proper context. As Barry puts it, not ‘loosing that beautiful artistry’. That artistry has to be performed in some sympathetic venue in order to remain recognisable as ‘opera’ ,whether small or large, and to do so needs considerable artistry ,which in turn requires great talent and dedication to be a lasting achievement. That to my mind is where an ‘opera singer’ works.
On FB I asked you the same question as Barry when he said are you looking for a total re-package? I think I called you ‘iconoclastic’. That seemed to me to be the thrust of your argument,an incitement to rebel against conventional definitions of success and an assertion that every singer can be equally successful when we re-define the criteria and self promote in creative ways. You wish to bypass the ‘gatekeepers’ ,managements,agents and opera houses. Every profession has it’s’ gatekeepers’, one has to find the approval of people that matter in that field. No amount of entrepreneurial training or self promotion will actually make you a better and more sought after artist by itself.
An ‘opera singer’ is someone who earns their living for the most part by singing operatic roles( not bits of repertoire) in accepted venues and can earn their living largely by this means. that’s the job description after all.
l
Geoff, thank you for taking the time to comment here, too. I am not disagreeing with you at all when you say an ‘opera singer’ is someone who for the most part sings operatic roles (not bits of repertoire) in accepted venues. (Although to really split hairs, I would personally add the word ‘professional’ if I wanted to indicate that they earn their living by it.)
I too agree with Tom and Barry in that I “want to keep the integrity of the art form of opera” but may I quote your words “accepted venues” and ask you how we should define what these might be? You have mentioned Covent Garden as an example of what would be generally agreed is a measure of success within the industry. And I agree that it can be – but it is certainly not definitive. I would never suggest to any singer that Peter Katona’s opinion – a lovely man who I highly respect – equals incontrovertible truth. I don’t want to dumb the notion of success down so that mediocrity may be applauded so we can feel good about ourselves.
What I am doing is calling for an expansion within the business of everything that defines and confines opera – expansion, not destruction. Innovation and fearlessness, not re-package and screw the gatekeepers. Because I strongly fear the business will implode for want of sticking to definitions and labels that are inherently unproductive. Because I do not buy in to this idea that great opera houses as a rule produce better work.
Isn’t artistry a function of a singer’s talent, training, dedication, intelligence, sensitivity and craft? As I said on Facebook, there is really no logical reason a great theater actor reciting King Lear could not be as impressive while standing on a park bench as he would on stage at The Old Vic. Artistry is not a function of architecture at all, but personal presence.
The term ‘Opera’ generally translated means “work” – not necessarily singers with large orchestras in large houses with large choruses. That might be grand opera but is not what Handel or Gluck would recognize. Opera has evolved to become all sorts of things but singing, with accompaniment, in a staged setting are the consistent elements. Oh, and let’s not forget audience!
Opera as an art form should continue to evolve along with the channels via which it is distributed.
Opera does not – in my opinion – have to be grand in order to be considered opera. It does not have to be in an opera house to be considered opera. It does not have to be Big Singing to be considered opera. It simply has to be sung, with a libretto, in a staged setting of some kind, preferably in front of an audience who really wants to be there. This is the scaffolding, irrespective of value judgments about artistic brilliance. This is how it began, and I fervently believe this is the framework which will allow it to evolve into something relevant for today’s audiences.
I want opera to remain as powerful as it can be, AND have extremely high standards of artistry. But I desperately want this artistry to be encouraged and celebrated as much as possible where ever and how ever it is staged. Only then will singers feel motivated to do everything they can to ensure that this art form survives without feeling judged as inferior.
Here’s what I’m doing -
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665073/an-opera-about-a-phantom-train-set-in-abandoned-rail-stations
What is opera? Opera is a form of what recently has been called music-theatre. But not all music-theatre really rates as opera. Opera does not need to use a chorus or an epic story. Its major ingredient is a text that is sung – and it can be a monodrama. So no doubt it could also be simply something sung by a chorus – though as a matter of fact there are no successful (ie rated and recognised) operas which are purely chorus or separate groups of chorus. I only know about, and am speaking of, what we should perhaps call Western opera – as opposed to Chinese opera etc. Opera need not be performed in any particular kind of theatre – it perhaps could be a form of cinema but that does not seem to work. The reason why opera does not work as cinema is interesting (though of course there have been opera films with appeal: and people are brought to opera by experiencing it in the cinema or even on recordings). I think the failure of opera in cinema is because the film close-up short-circuits the aria by making the physical act of singing intimate but unrevealing in a way that is far less potent than the actual sound of the voice which seems to come straight to you if you are in the live audience in the most intimate and revealing possible way as you listen. In truth, an essential part of opera is the “aria” or “individual song” which is the means whereby singers convey a great part of their acting and by that means the fundamental and personal nature of the role they are performing to the members of the audience however near or far they may be from the stage – because the glory of singing is that one can sing and thousands may receive the same impression from the one singing. In other words the experience is potentially the same for all who hear. This is the ultimate democratic ideal, that there is no privileged access in the reception of the sound of the voice and the words it bears and the colouring it delivers in any proper opera house: the acoustic in other words guarantees the process and its value. We have heard a lot about new operas relevant to the times we live in. But the remarkable pantheon of great works created since the time of Shakespeare and known as operas contains 50 or 100 works that I would call essential – as well as many others that are viable. These stories continue to speak to audiences anywhere just as the Koran or the Bible can. And they do that with immense power, authority, and expressiveness which it is the job of the performers to harness. It is not easy to enter that pantheon, though everybody who is drawn to create new operas has to start somewhere and try and get better, and a few make it! But to neglect that pantheon (which is largely what happens in the small-scale ventures which concentrate either on the brand new or on the familiar done in a usually somewhat compromise fashion) is frankly wrong. And the problem with the American model for opera is that it has only led to one fulltime operahouse , the Met in New York, in the whole of the USA – and none of the part-time houses elsewhere (whose seasons in the best cases are no more than six months of the year) performs a sufficiently varied rep to enable most potential operalovers and ticket-buyers to explore and become familiar with the glorious riches that are there waiting to be exploited. Italy is also a flawed model – though the most successful houses in Turin, Milan and Rome (I do not mean artistically successful) follow more or less a German model: but stagione is not a good idea because it requires the audience to know already what they want to buy, and it does not open any possibility of word of mouth spreading as the German rep system does. Stagione does make for a more polished sustained product in short bursts, and it does or should enable a more economical calculation of costs. But when funding is under pressure it tends to be the volume of work that gets reduced and the scale of the “establishment” that remains the same – which of course makes no sense. I’ll go on to answer the Stadttheater question in another post here.
There are places such as Bern, the capital of Switzerland (which is a country that is so democratic they don’t even have a prime minister of president – in case such an individual gets above himself or herself) where the Stadttheater model has recently been questioned. The rich burghers would like a grand modern and much larger opera house than the beautiful gem that was built for them in the early 1911 or so. They won’t knock it down but they think opera ought to be on a larger scale. They also have not been supporting their opera as they ideally should have been. But there’s no acccounting for taste. They like clever-clever stagings by Mariame Clement but could not be bothered to enjoy a very witty Merry Widow staged by Guy Joosten five or six years back. Where do the economies come from in the Stadttheater model? Shared workshops serve all three artforms, legitimate spoken theatre, dance, and opera. The administration are employed by the town as if they worked at the townhall, and they don’t change when there’s a switch of artistic administration – so there’s a degree of stability about the whole institution, and there’s a sense that the institution exists to be inhabited and operated by the artists carrying out their programme of performances which serves the public. The big difference is that the local authority has the discretion to spend its acknowledged part of the tax raised by government at the higher levels at which it operates: the big acceptance is that people in these European countries know that the various taxes they pay (whether income tax, value added tax, or city sales taxes) go into one pot – but the responsibility for the spending is locally held and supported because of what it provides. There are some things that citizens like to have available that are better run by the municipality rather than run as primarily commercial operations. The big difference between the German-speaking and English-speaking worlds is that we English speakers know that our English-language culture will not disappear because very few people go to the theatre and there’s very little opera anywhere. There’s always Hollywood, and there used to be the BBC (still is though without much in the way of drama of any artistic quality). But the German speakers (including the Swiss) know that German art has its great manifestations in visual work and sculpture and its examples are its music and its opera. They also know that if they do not support German-language spoken theatre, it will disappear. Luebeck in north Germany was a member of the Hanseatic League of trading cities on the Baltic (and also the home of Thomas and Heinrich Mann and also the scene of Buddenbrooks the former’s brilliant first novel. Its population is 210,800. Its theatre is a Jugenstil gem built in 1908. It does not do dance. For next season it will have 10 singers on permanent contract and 19 guests, will do 8 new opera productions and six revivals and give 100 performances. The theatre company will have 18 members and use the main house much less than the opera, concentrating on the studio theatre and youth theatre, and giving 21 shows of one sort or another including 8 to 10 classics. There’s also a large concert programme. The opera chorus has 28 members, the orchestra is 80-strong. The workshops employ 54, backstage there are 58, and the permanent admin is 19-strong. Of course the city is heavily involved in a long-established kind of oversight. Luebeck has an important university as well being a successful trading city. It did not have aristocracy. It matters to the city that it does all of this – and Luebeck also has wonderful churches and medieval fabric a good deal of which survived the war, as well as a notable museum containing some world class masterpieces. To persuade cities anywhere in the English-speaking world that they should take this kind of responsibility for the live performing arts would be very difficult and no doubt controversial. The USA has a healthier regional theatre scene than the UK (apart from Northern Ireland and Scotland, where theatre plays an important role in supporting a continuing sense of local identity). The USA does classical music better in its huge major cities, whereas we in the UK are totally and unhealthily dominated by London. But the only way to nurture and sustain new live-performance culture is probably through the involvement of local government where there is very little tradition of practical concern and involvement in Great Britain or Ireland – and a rather ineffective and now dysfunctional post-war tradition of centralised national rather than local funding. England is a heavily-populated small country where the majority of the population is disillusioned with the whole idea of local government and local differences and local responsibility which has earned the bad name of “post-code lottery” in the area of health. But some day people may wake up to what is missing in their local environment, compared to the norms in central and eastern Europe and Russia. Enesembles of performers can be very productive at a quite low price, but they are not strictly capable of being commercial. And to be worthwhile they need to opera at a high level of productivity which means they need to sell a lot of seats. So the final secret of the German performing arts scene is that seat prices are low, and that the user of course does not pay anything like the “real” price for the product. But the prices in the US for opera are based on charging as much as the market can bear, and mixing in a good deal of money raised from the richer element in the form of generous donations (dependent on tax kickbacks and deals subsidised by the tax system) and a readiness to pay quite high ticket prices on top for what are supposedly often perceived as “world class” artists. Many German houses have very decent performance standards. And Germany is an extraordinary training ground. If German opera is seriously reduced and cut back it will be the death of popular opera in the world. There are a few politicians and commentators in Germany saying, why don’t we do it the way they do it in the USA and the UK? It seems they have not been here to look. Or they have only been made aware of the joys of the Met and Covent Garden.
I have not said the ROH and ‘grand opera’ is the only way.People keep putting words in my mouth and it’s very annoying! Neither have I said that one should only perform in ‘opera Houses’ ,that would cut out most touring opera in this country. I’m struggling with my own phrase ‘accepted venues ‘ a bit actually. What I mean is a venue where the opera has a fighting chance of succeeding and where its ‘integrity ‘ is preserved. That’s a difficult one because outdoor and other specific venues can work too depending on the opera and scale though outdoor is acoustically very difficult. Ideally though one usually needs the arcitechture of a suitable building to produce the best result artistically ,in my opinion, where subtlety and nuance can be accomodated along with broader gestures. An great actor declaiming Lear on a park bench might still be effective ,not sure about an opera which needs an orchestra.
Yes opera can be performed in all sorts of suitable spaces but the conventional opera house theatre with pit ,sets, costumes and sympathetic accoustic is what has evolved as the standard setting most suitable for mounting a complex art form to give it the best platform. That doesn’t mean it can’t be performed elsewhere but it will be different, not always inferior but a reduced version if you like. It may not have started in this way but it has evolved as such. That should still be the ideal to be aspired to in my opinion ,but that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t sometimes be done in a different way. Can we agree on that?
It can have equal power and artistry in various settings I admit and yes big companies/houses do not always produce the best work but IMO I think we need to careful not to be too iconoclastic and throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were which seemd to be your ‘call to arms’ in your article. We need the great operahouses and larger scale companies who tour this country to act as ‘flagships’ for the artform. Smaller scale and innovative products yes but they alone will not ensure a healthy operatic future. I think I have made my view clear now but I respect others right to opinions, we may have to agree to differ
Natalie – I’m not from the opera world, but just wanted to say this was a fascinating peek.
Sounds a bit like what’s happening in the publishing world, and the educational world, and and and…
Nice work!
Thank you for a fascinating and thought-provoking article. I was very interested to read it, and the comments that followed!
Thanks, Lucy Braga, for noticing this 2-month-old discussion. But actually it is incredibly frustrating to read Nancy Peluso’s launch piece again. It’s a view from the English-speaking world or should one say American-speaking world. And that is a world where opera has never really gained a proper foothold. Opera is a live performing art that used to be widespread in Italy and still exists throughout the German-speaking world where it is seen as a normal part of popular culture. Elsewhere it is a migratory bird that does not breed. It’s also not all about singers – though music and, particularly, song are crucial elements in opera. But this idea that opera can be created without very special composers, without all the elements of theatre, without interesting dramatic material and precisely judged text is frankly nonsense. There can be something vaguely operatic hopping around on restaurant tables, but not something that has lasting power, not something that will
really be worth digesting. Opera will not be lost or missed in the English- or American-speaking world because it has never been properly established in that world. We have tried, many of us, to make something of it. But it does not look very hopeful just at present. And while we are talking about opera – why not acknowledge that Janet Baker’s career would have been entirely different if she had been in a company with an ensemble. She might even have ended up running an opera, like Brigitte Fassbaender – who has been doing great things for opera in Innsbruck. The trouble with we English- and American-speakers is we seem to believe we are the only ones who know how to make the world work. And we simply do not look at how it can be done where it is a success. Opera is thriving in the German-speaking world. I’ve been to many sold-out or well-filled performances there – in top-grade as well as less important houses. And size of theatre is not the only issue. In fact those barns that Americans think you must use are no way to help people in the cheap seats get an idea of what opera is supposed to be about. Nor of course is opera as film transmitted into cinemas on the false assumption that because it’s “live” it actually works the way real live opera works. It’s a reasonable way of experiencing some of what opera is about. But it’s nothing like the real thing – not least because you are embarrasingly close to singers’ mouths all the time – and very often that is not the point. So please let’s accept that opera, real opera, has barely been tried in the English- and American-speaking world. AND OPERA IS NOT ALL ABOUT SINGERS AND SINGING – though they are the primary resource for performance.
Hi again Tom – many thanks again for your reply (although my name is Natalie not Nancy) I wanted to respond to your reply as I fear there may have been a rather significant misunderstanding about what I am saying.
Yes, my post is very much an English-centric point of view mainly concerning singers. I never meant it to be anything other than that – as a singer myself I know that if I wanted to have a regular working life as an appreciated and decently paid singer, that I should have chosen Germany as my home base rather than Australia. As a citizen of the UK I am lucky to even have that choice – many singers do not.
But if a singer resides in a country or town where singing in a local opera house *for a decent living* (and I mean beyond supporting just oneself) is an impossibility – where there is no contracted chorus and barely three productions a year, then what are the choices available to this singer? What choices do they have if the only way to sustain themselves financially is to travel 9 months of the year? When the fees for singers nowadays are ludicrous and a partner’s income is required, who looks after the children during a 6 week rehearsal period in a different state/country?
My point was that there is a rather vicious circular dilemma inherent in the business of singing where the conventional path is perceived to be the only path deemed successful. This snobbishness and elitism that is rife within the opera world lurks insidiously in the minds of the singers themselves and prevents a more inventive, bold and dynamic approach to creating opera on terms that fit the singer and not the institution.
While it’s wonderful that opera is flourishing in parts of Europe, it is hideous that conservatoires are thrusting more and more trained singers out into the world only to be chomped up by penny-pinching opera companies and spat out when they become too expensive, or the singer’s family life becomes a challenge. I am asking for singers to be trained in entrepreneurial skills to sustain themselves beyond the initial flush of a conventional career and if they are not singing in major opera companies – because they are not talented enough, not living in the city, can’t get the visa or have children – then I’m not interested in how they frame that experience as failure or success. But I AM interested in there being more fearlessness in how these singers choose to use their voices on their own creative terms with the resources available to them.
Opera is not all about singers and singers but I defy you to put one on without them.
Thanks for reading Lucy – it has certainly been a provocative train of thought… hope it has stimulated some ideas for whatever you are working on personally.
One Trackback
[...] in the UK – Tom Sutcliffe had some interesting points to make about this and opera in Germany on this post.) Are these cuts the work of the Tory devil? Or [...]